Nutrition is to me all the nutrients we need to consume. The same rules apply to them all - we need a certain amount of them all, all non-engineered foods only cover some subset of it (hence needing to eat “balanced” to even things out), and we handle abundance of any of them very poorly. “Big food” is not problematic because of what it lacks (getting more of any time of nutrition is easy in modern society), but because of what it has too much of (hard to uneat something). Hence too nutritious. I won’t argue against there being other definitions, but I find this one most appropriate and indicative of the problem. :)

No, your assumption of my definition of “tasty” is not right. Did you like the taste? Then it is tasty. Eating tasty foods is pleasurable, and therefore addictive. And what home cook wouldn’t try to make their food more tasty?

Fats, sugars and salts are shortcuts to maximizing primitive tastiness because “tasty” is meant to drive a search for nutrients and a guidance away from dangerous foods (especially salt giving how rare it can be - ever seen what animals do to get to a salt lick?), but that’s all.

Complexity is itself not tastiness. If a “complex” taste does not make you want to eat more, I’d argue that the food was not at all tasty, but just an interesting experience. Like seeing an art piece that was not beautiful and certainly not something you’d ever consider buying, but still worth having a look at once on a special day.

You are basically ignoring an entire dimension of food taste, enjoyment, and satisfaction by saying complexity is not tastiness. Plus you are ignoring the fact that nutrition includes micronutrient profile. Then you are concluding that high calorie food has high nutrition and tasty foods are foods that you want to eat more of. No offense but this is like a child's view of food, or maybe some kind of food addict view of food. There is a lot more to nutrition and taste than your current definition of it.

You are ignoring that I am in fact including both macro and micro nutrient profile (if you exceed any individual parameter, you have consumed too much nutrition) and that I am using the widest possible definition of food taste that would include any type of pleasurable food experience - merely implying that complexity alone itself is not tastiness. Complex taste profiles can be tasty, but sometimes they are merely interesting.

The focus on too much is important. No food has everything you need (other than engineered Soylent-like foods), and we rely on composing a healthy diet by using foods whose profiles augment each other. The weaker the nutrition of a food item, the more room you have to augment your diet to obtain the needed balance. If you are already close to any limit, your options for augmentation to cover the remaining needs without reaching an excess is heavily reduced. If a single food item already exceeds any limit, there is no way to construct a healthy diet with it.

If your way of dealing with disagreement is to call opposing views childish, then it is safe to say that you are not mature enough to hold a discussion on the matter.

Looks like you completely made up the interpretation that you wanted and fitted your point. Your point can be valid, but it does lose strength when your interpretation of the previous comment gets both points backwards.

The whole point of my comment is about the definition of nutrition and taste. It's not made up.